per.4
Mapp vs. Ohio
Mapp vs. Ohio was a significant case which tested the limitations of the fourth amendment and the Supreme Court. The whole ordeal began with two officers who approached Mrs. Mapp believing she was hiding a fugitive in her home. They ordered her to let them search her home but Mrs. Mapp refused. Why should anyone, even if they claim to be government officials, have the right to unconstitutionally invade your privacy upon suspicion? Without a proper warrant, Mrs. Mapp refused the officers demand. Later, the officers returned with backup. This time they brought along a fake warrant. As they flashed the “warrant” to Mrs. Mapp, furiously, she grabbed it out of the officer’s hands and stuffed it in her shirt. They fought their way through pushing Mrs. Mapp out the door and forcing themselves on her reaching into her shirt to obtain their fake warrant. Now this is an example of mal-practice and unlawful behavior by government officials. However, as the officers marched into Mapp’s home they came across what they classified as “obscene material.” They charged and tried Mrs. Mapp. “The case of Wolf vs. Colorado was cited, which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search and seizure, which was already provided for federal cases.” Mrs. Mapp was denied her right to the fourth amendment due to the Wolf vs. Colorado case because of new evidence found in Mrs. Mapp’s home. Back then, cases were handled illegaly but handing the case to the state to avoid and complications with the illegal evidence seized. They abused the system by handling cases in states which had not yet adopted the exclusionary rule. But since the federal exclusionary rule is not applied for all states, every citizen in the U.S. is protected. The federal exclusionary rule has been the most important of protected the rights of the accused in American society.
The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment by definition is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It can be broken down into two simple parts: the right to search and seizure and the proper issue of warrants. Any evidence seized illegally is disclosed from trial by the exclusionary rule. This enforces the fourth amendment for government officials. Warrants must be issued by a judge with probable cause which is tested under the “totality of circumstances.” The government has defined a search as “expectation of privacy” which means what you expect to have privacy for will not be illegally searched. However, something that is in plain view that can be observed by all is not considered private. If someone goes through your garbage it is not considered unlawfully there is no expectation that garbage is private. The only thing you expect is for the garbage to be taken away from you and thrown away. Also, the numbers you dial as in phone records are not considered private. Being watched by officers staking out in some unknown location of having a helicopter fly above your home watching you is not considered private. The fourth amendment can be bend by different angles do to “probable cause” or reason of doubt.
A Review
You may ask, “How do this affect me?” This amendment, like all others, affects us tremendously. It protects, yet also takes away some of our freedom. The fourth amendment has helped save innocent people from getting thrown into jail and stop the police and other government agents from abusing their powers. Yet, at times it makes us feel unease. Even though they need a warrant to search our homes or personal records they can search us while walking down the street, driving in our cars, going through an airport, or wherever on school grounds. Many of us may think, “Well, I have nothing to hide anyways so why not let them search me?” Being free also means having personal privacy. We want our privacy. Also, would you like someone going through your things, your records, your life? What freedom is there in that? A conducted search can be legally permissible by: during a lawful arrest, if the police have a legally valid search warrant or, with the person’s consent. You can deny to be searched however, that all changes once you enter a school campus. We students are under the legal age of adulthood, and unfairly must stand by while we are very limited to our privacy. We cannot refuse a search by a principal or counselor or even our parents. To the government we have little rights until we become 18 which means more consequences. It is a controversial case that has been strictly enforced due to past events. We want our school to feel safe yet we want to feel comfortable with our privacy. Until this rule is taken advantage of, I do not believe it will be changed anytime soon but only be enforced more and more upon us. Being safe does come at a price in which most of us are willing to pay.
Mapp vs. Ohio was a significant case which tested the limitations of the fourth amendment and the Supreme Court. The whole ordeal began with two officers who approached Mrs. Mapp believing she was hiding a fugitive in her home. They ordered her to let them search her home but Mrs. Mapp refused. Why should anyone, even if they claim to be government officials, have the right to unconstitutionally invade your privacy upon suspicion? Without a proper warrant, Mrs. Mapp refused the officers demand. Later, the officers returned with backup. This time they brought along a fake warrant. As they flashed the “warrant” to Mrs. Mapp, furiously, she grabbed it out of the officer’s hands and stuffed it in her shirt. They fought their way through pushing Mrs. Mapp out the door and forcing themselves on her reaching into her shirt to obtain their fake warrant. Now this is an example of mal-practice and unlawful behavior by government officials. However, as the officers marched into Mapp’s home they came across what they classified as “obscene material.” They charged and tried Mrs. Mapp. “The case of Wolf vs. Colorado was cited, which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search and seizure, which was already provided for federal cases.” Mrs. Mapp was denied her right to the fourth amendment due to the Wolf vs. Colorado case because of new evidence found in Mrs. Mapp’s home. Back then, cases were handled illegaly but handing the case to the state to avoid and complications with the illegal evidence seized. They abused the system by handling cases in states which had not yet adopted the exclusionary rule. But since the federal exclusionary rule is not applied for all states, every citizen in the U.S. is protected. The federal exclusionary rule has been the most important of protected the rights of the accused in American society.
The Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment by definition is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It can be broken down into two simple parts: the right to search and seizure and the proper issue of warrants. Any evidence seized illegally is disclosed from trial by the exclusionary rule. This enforces the fourth amendment for government officials. Warrants must be issued by a judge with probable cause which is tested under the “totality of circumstances.” The government has defined a search as “expectation of privacy” which means what you expect to have privacy for will not be illegally searched. However, something that is in plain view that can be observed by all is not considered private. If someone goes through your garbage it is not considered unlawfully there is no expectation that garbage is private. The only thing you expect is for the garbage to be taken away from you and thrown away. Also, the numbers you dial as in phone records are not considered private. Being watched by officers staking out in some unknown location of having a helicopter fly above your home watching you is not considered private. The fourth amendment can be bend by different angles do to “probable cause” or reason of doubt.
A Review
You may ask, “How do this affect me?” This amendment, like all others, affects us tremendously. It protects, yet also takes away some of our freedom. The fourth amendment has helped save innocent people from getting thrown into jail and stop the police and other government agents from abusing their powers. Yet, at times it makes us feel unease. Even though they need a warrant to search our homes or personal records they can search us while walking down the street, driving in our cars, going through an airport, or wherever on school grounds. Many of us may think, “Well, I have nothing to hide anyways so why not let them search me?” Being free also means having personal privacy. We want our privacy. Also, would you like someone going through your things, your records, your life? What freedom is there in that? A conducted search can be legally permissible by: during a lawful arrest, if the police have a legally valid search warrant or, with the person’s consent. You can deny to be searched however, that all changes once you enter a school campus. We students are under the legal age of adulthood, and unfairly must stand by while we are very limited to our privacy. We cannot refuse a search by a principal or counselor or even our parents. To the government we have little rights until we become 18 which means more consequences. It is a controversial case that has been strictly enforced due to past events. We want our school to feel safe yet we want to feel comfortable with our privacy. Until this rule is taken advantage of, I do not believe it will be changed anytime soon but only be enforced more and more upon us. Being safe does come at a price in which most of us are willing to pay.